Presidential Politics And Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:51:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In my bloggingheads conversation with Conn Carroll of the National Journal's Blogometer, I tried to explain my view of using Presidential politics to influence Iraq policy. I tried to emphasize that a savvy and issues oriented Netroots could push our Presidential contenders to lead on getting us out by endorsing, embracing and promoting the not funding approach, the only possible way to end it during Bush's tenure. I think Jerome Armstrong's post on Obama and not funding is very much in line with what I have tried to do as well:

The recent attack from Obama that was directed toward Clinton and Edwards over Iraq made me wonder about which of the two, between Obama and Edwards, might be perceived as having more credibility on ending the Iraq War. . . . [E]nding the war means cutting off funding of the war, and that's not been something that Obama has been in favor of, until just recently.
. . . Obama wants to make a preemptive differentiation that only he is prepared to be the Democratic nominee based on his original opposition to invading Iraq. It's as if Obama is trying to become the Dean of '08 in attracting those of us who were against this war from the beginning. But the comparison of Obama to Dean ends in 2003. Dean never supported funding of the war, Obama continually did until the most recent vote.
. . . I applaud the change made by Obama. It's the direction those of us who want this war ended want every Democratic politician to take, in an effort to end the war in Iraq. But the notion that Obama has some sort of special appeal over the issue of Iraq, to those of us who are actually paying attention, seems full of folly.

I hope Jerome is right because it is my wish to see our Presidential contenders be pushed to be leaders in the Not Funding movement. More.

Jerome shrewdly argues this in terms that Presidential candidates can and will understand - what effect will it have on their respective campaigns. In essence, Jerome hopes that Presidential politics calculation leads Obama to lead on the issue. Some would call that hoping for a pander. I call it politics.

And it is why I have argued so vociferously with Netroots leaders like Bowers and Stoller on why they have been so wrongheaded in their approaches to both Iraq and to the Presidential race. They gopt wrapped in horseraces, personality cults and polling and forgot about the issues.

It is very heartening to me to see Jerome embrace what in my view is the proper way for progressive activists to view Presidential politics at this time. Hooray for Jerome! May others follow his lead.

< One Issue Joe | Hillary Clinton to Join Candidates at Yearly Kos >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Presidential Politics And Iraq | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:06:39 PM EST

and the Obama partisans assume that Jerome doesn't care about the issues--only pot shots in a horse race. A microcosm of what's wrong with the netroots.

Presidential politics aside ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:13:10 PM EST

...I think we're headed for the worst possible world come September - bipartisan support for a withdrawal that is not a withdrawal, with a date certain from starting, but not date certain for ending (because they want to keep a hefty number of troops in Iraq indefinitely. While I support defunding, and feel the best way to achieve that is by sending up no bill at all, the only way that can happen (now and ever since this idea was first posited) is if we can collect 41 Senate votes to keep cloture from happening on a funding bill that the majority of Senators will try to send to the Oval Office for signing.

We should try to defeat (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:15:28 PM EST

the compromise in the House. I like our starting point there better.


218 (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:27:34 PM EST

is my focus, I have NO confidence in the Senate.


With good reason (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by TexDem on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:47:23 PM EST

although the house doesn't warrant a lot of faith either.


True (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:52:11 PM EST

But some faith is better than none.


: With a few exceptions (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by TexDem on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:56:33 PM EST

my faith is wearing thin. I'm watching these investigations closely. Step by step. Pressure from where we can get it.

MB, will there be a strong, focused (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oculus on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:09:53 PM EST

advocacy of not-funding at Yearly Kos? Pity if the front-running Dem presidential candidates are there and this advocacy isn't.

P.S. Jerome's grammar is faulty so I wouldn't nominate him, although I agree with his ideas. Problematic that he concentrates on Obama and Edward and totally ignores Clinton though.


I take into consideration that the military (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:26:11 PM EST

is flat busted. Bush is trying his damnedest to look fully in the game with the very last cards he has. We need a gentle leave taking so that what happened in Al Anbar province can also happen elsewhere and we have troops that have pulled back but can stop genocide when it breaks out. It will still be so terribly gross and messy though when those first power struggles break completely free of American influences. We won't be staying in Iraq though, it is truly impossible without a draft. Bush is trying to look tough until the day he leaves the White House and god help the military if he succeeds in that endeavor because I don't know what we'll have left for troops. Please realize that many of the troops listed as "operational" will not be very shortly, we have a huge mass of PTSD that isn't even beginning to be addressed yet. My husband just taught a past sniper who wants to be a chopper pilot now. My husband came home last night so sad. He told me that this guy barely has any personality left at all, he's surviving like some sort of machine devoid of all feelings until the day comes when he can't anymore and then everybody had better be clear because it is going to be ugly and very destructive. My husband also guesses about half of his class suffers from PTSD in the soldiers who already have served in Iraq. Because my husband also has to deal with it he knows what it looks like and what it sounds like but because we got outside help for him he knows what is up with him. All of these other soldiers have no idea that something with them isn't quite matching up and because they haven't strangled the family dog in front of the children yet it hasn't even been acknowledged, but it will be eventually. They are all walking time bombs of a sort and appear to be functional for this brief time being. Just don't ask them to come home and attempt to live here with all of us for any extended period of time.


Re your first sentence: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:47 PM EST

San Diego Union Trib leads (or "ledes") with this today:

Bush asserts authority on Iraq policy
He takes harder line with Congress; House votes to withdraw troops

: re: House votes to withdraw troops (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:17:39 PM EST

Washington Times (Associated Press):
The measure passed 223-201 despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.
...
To his critics - including an increasing number of Republicans - he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

LOL (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by talex on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:19:36 PM EST

41 votes to not send up a bill at all? GFL!

And what is your plan Meteor to fund the troops while they remain in Iraq until a withdrawal can start? And what is you plan to fund the withdrawal itself?

You see until you have a plan for those two things, and there may be others, then do you really think 41 Senators are going to effectively cut-off funding while their constituents back home have sons and daughters, sisters and brothers still in Iraq? Do you really think that the people with family in Iraq are going to stand for that?

Without a plan Meteor for the money to withdraw you will never get 41 votes. Never. That is why such a hair-brained idea is not even being discussed in DC.

<<<>>>

As for Armando's post - well of course all of our Presidential Candidates are for getting out of Iraq. They don't need to be pushed to do that. And whichever one wins the WH, if we are lucky enough for them to do so, they won't have to cut-off funding because they will be able to just end the war in another responsible way.

But if people are expecting them to call for defunding while they are still running then those people are delusional. None of the candidates would ever do that as their chances of winning and being able to 'realistically' end the war would be gone.

One can hardly call Obama's or Clinton's No Votes as a call to end funding. They were opportunistic votes as everyone knows. They were able to vote No because they knew the bill was going to pass. And as such they voted in the way needed to pander/politic/blah blah to the primary active base. End of story.

If either one of them was the deciding vote in a future bill to fund or not to fund - they would vote to fund without even thinking about it - no questions asked - no political calculations - no lives put in further jeopardy because of lack of money.

For anyone in the netroots to think otherwise is delusional.

And for anyone in the netroots to think that they would vote otherwise themselves when for once in their lives they would have 'real facts' at hand about the consequences of defunding is doubly delusional. No one here with the real facts about the consequences of defunding that supports the troops would leave them penniless - would you?


: Need more info on: (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:25:10 PM EST

[B]ecause they will be able to just end the war in another responsible way.

: talex (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 03:43:19 PM EST

But if people are expecting them to call for defunding while they are still running then those people are delusional. None of the candidates would ever do that as their chances of winning and being able to 'realistically' end the war would be gone.
You admit that a large number of them are just as corrupt and self-serving and have as little concern for the lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the rethugs do...
But the rotted flesh stench will smell like roses next year if only everyone will just hold their noses and vote for these corrupt cockroaches and believe that you'll have a veto proof majority to beat Bush over the head with...
...just as soon as the stampede of neocons and Blue Dogs and Repugs defecting from the Bush/50 Year Occupation Camp and supporting ending the occupation happens?
Right, talex. Got it.

Michael Chertoff's counterterrorism stomach. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:29:21 PM EST

VIDEO: All Hail the Prophetic Gut!
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown, Thursday 12 July 2007

: And this part... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:56:58 PM EST

Secondly, of course, there is the explanation of choice for those millions of us who have heard the shrill and curiously timed cries of "wolf" over the past six years - what we've called here "the Nexus of Politics and Terror" - that there isn't anything cooking, and your "gut feeling" was actually that you'd better throw up a diversion soon on Mr. Bush's behalf or something real - like the Republicans' revolt about Iraq, and the nauseating "gut feeling" that we have gotten 3,611 Americans killed there for no reason - was actually going to seep into the American headlines and consciousness.
It's impossible to prove a negative, to guarantee that you and your predecessors deliberately scared the American public just for the political hell of it - even though your predecessor, Mr. Ridge, admitted he had his suspicions about exactly that.
Suffice to say, Mr. Chertoff: If it ever can be proved, there will be a lot of people from Homeland Security and other outposts of this remarkably corrupt administration who will be going to prison.

: KO, ya gotta love him (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by TexDem on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:58:38 PM EST

and his "Special Comments."

i may be wrong (none / 0) (#14)
by Turkana on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:31:16 PM EST

but i thought obama's position on 2008 pullout included leaving trainers, "embassy" guards, etc., which could mean tens of thousands still in iraq. if that's the case, he's still well behind the curve on what getting out actually means, so figuring out how to actually do it isn't even his first problem. from what i've seen, of the even plausibly viable candidates, only richardson is talking a complete withdrawal.